Reviving Redistributionism

#103
#103
volinbham said:
Here's a table with the deficit/surplus of each year.

The debt grew under Clinton but has grown more under Bush. I (and many economists) would attribute much of the deficit reduction of the late 90's to the rapid growth of the economy and accordingly, some of the return to deficits resulting from the slowing of that growth. Of course, war spending has been a large contributor to the W. deficits.

It's also instructive to look at deficits as a percentage of GDP.

US Government Budget Surpluses and Deficits - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

I understand there are many factors to the growing debt, also including the increase in Soc. Sec. payments to retiring Boomers. At least the budget was balanced during a Clinton admin./GOP congress. How long will it take to get back to that?
 
#104
#104
TennNC said:
Thanks for the link.

I understand there are many factors to the growing debt, also including the increase in Soc. Sec. payments to retiring Boomers. At least the budget was balanced during a Clinton admin./GOP congress. How long will it take to get back to that?
Click to expand...

Bubba President for Life..... with a conservative congress!
 
#105
#105
MG1968 said:
hardly. I have yet to see you give a rational explanation how Obama's tax increases on corporations and people earning over 250k are going to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Click to expand...

you went from talking about waste within federal government departments to taxing wealthy individual income earners without taking a breath. I'd call that a non sequitur.

But to address your point, you're probably better off checking Obama's website or asking someone better versed in economics as to what Obama's plan for stimulating the economy and creating jobs is. Perhaps taxing the wealthiest Americans and corporations is to raise revenue (which we actually need to do), and perhaps other initiatives in his plan are there to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Since I don't make more than $250K a year, I'm not fretting over that portion of the plan. Are you?
 
#106
#106
TennNC said:
you went from talking about waste within federal government departments to taxing wealthy individual income earners without taking a breath. I'd call that a non sequitur.

But to address your point, you're probably better off checking Obama's website or asking someone better versed in economics as to what Obama's plan for stimulating the economy and creating jobs is. Perhaps taxing the wealthiest Americans and corporations is to raise revenue (which we actually need to do), and perhaps other initiatives in his plan are there to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Since I don't make more than $250K a year, I'm not fretting over that portion of the plan. Are you?
Click to expand...

I went to Obama's website and this popped up....

Democratic Socialists of America
 
#107
#107
TennNC said:
you went from talking about waste within federal government departments to taxing wealthy individual income earners without taking a breath. I'd call that a non sequitur.

But to address your point, you're probably better off checking Obama's website or asking someone better versed in economics as to what Obama's plan for stimulating the economy and creating jobs is. Perhaps taxing the wealthiest Americans and corporations is to raise revenue (which we actually need to do), and perhaps other initiatives in his plan are there to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Since I don't make more than $250K a year, I'm not fretting over that portion of the plan. Are you?
Click to expand...


I am, and people in my company will suffer for it.
 
#109
#109
TennNC said:
you went from talking about waste within federal government departments to taxing wealthy individual income earners without taking a breath. I'd call that a non sequitur.

But to address your point, you're probably better off checking Obama's website or asking someone better versed in economics as to what Obama's plan for stimulating the economy and creating jobs is. Perhaps taxing the wealthiest Americans and corporations is to raise revenue (which we actually need to do), and perhaps other initiatives in his plan are there to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Since I don't make more than $250K a year, I'm not fretting over that portion of the plan. Are you?
Click to expand...
I would be in the mid to lower middle income bracket. I make more than some, should they benefit from my work? At what point are we to stop when there is still some people out there making much less than others. The majority of those people who make over 250k employ people in a lower income class. When they get laid off and more are in need do we go to 200k and so on? Eventually we all end up jobless.
 
#110
#110
TennNC said:
Thanks for the link.

I understand there are many factors to the growing debt, also including the increase in Soc. Sec. payments to retiring Boomers. At least the budget was balanced during a Clinton admin./GOP congress. How long will it take to get back to that?
Click to expand...

The cynic in me says the balance was due to revenues growing faster than the government's ability to spend them. They eventually figured it out just as economic growth was slowing to a more normal pace.

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has been shrinking (relative deficit vs absolute deficit).

The war is a big factor - without it, there may be no deficit however, it likely has some stimulus effect on the economy so removing all war spending might lower tax revenues (still there would be a net reduction in the deficit).
 
#111
#111
TennNC said:
Since I don't make more than $250K a year, I'm not fretting over that portion of the plan. Are you?
Click to expand...

I don't make anywhere close to that but I object to the prinicple that those that do are ripe for the plucking so to speak. I'd much rather attack the spending side. Also, I'm not convinced that raising the rates (as proposed) on these folks will raise revenues overall - to the extent it doesn't, we've simply taken from one to give to another without improving the situation.
 
#112
#112
volinbham said:
I don't make anywhere close to that but I object to the prinicple that those that do are ripe for the plucking so to speak. I'd much rather attack the spending side. Also, I'm not convinced that raising the rates (as proposed) on these folks will raise revenues overall - to the extent it doesn't, we've simply taken from one to give to another without improving the situation.
Click to expand...

Thank You...I knew I liked you just a little.
 
#113
#113
volinbham said:
The cynic in me says the balance was due to revenues growing faster than the government's ability to spend them. They eventually figured it out just as economic growth was slowing to a more normal pace.

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has been shrinking (relative deficit vs absolute deficit).

The war is a big factor - without it, there may be no deficit however, it likely has some stimulus effect on the economy so removing all war spending might lower tax revenues (still there would be a net reduction in the deficit).
Click to expand...

I see your points. To the point in bold, however, they did have a balanced budget legislation to operate under, right? I would like to see us at least try to implement that again.
 
#114
#114
volinbham said:
I don't make anywhere close to that but I object to the prinicple that those that do are ripe for the plucking so to speak. I'd much rather attack the spending side. Also, I'm not convinced that raising the rates (as proposed) on these folks will raise revenues overall - to the extent it doesn't, we've simply taken from one to give to another without improving the situation.
Click to expand...

I think there's probably some middle ground in all of this. As I've said in this thread many times, I'm opposed to wasteful spending, and I think that alone would make a good dent. I'm sure there are many programs that are unnecessary, but I also believe many social programs are helpful -- and not just to those who use them -- and therefore shouldn't be abolished. We don't have to go down this road again, but I believe in the interconnectedness of people and believe nothing happens in a vacuum.

For that reason I don't protest paying a higher % of my income in taxes than someone living below the median and think something like a flat tax sounds equitable but isn't realistic given what we expect from the government.
 
#118
#118
TennNC said:
Well played.

But remember, W quit drinking a long time ago. Perhaps he was listening to his gut, not booze, when he approved all that spending.
Click to expand...

Well, let's not forget that he IS the Decider.
 
#119
#119
TennNC said:
I think there's probably some middle ground in all of this. As I've said in this thread many times, I'm opposed to wasteful spending, and I think that alone would make a good dent. I'm sure there are many programs that are unnecessary, but I also believe many social programs are helpful -- and not just to those who use them -- and therefore shouldn't be abolished. We don't have to go down this road again, but I believe in the interconnectedness of people and believe nothing happens in a vacuum.

For that reason I don't protest paying a higher % of my income in taxes than someone living below the median and think something like a flat tax sounds equitable but isn't realistic given what we expect from the government.
Click to expand...


i agree with a lot of what you say about wasteful spending but this is where we differ. i want nothing from the federal gov't other than what is laid out in the constitution. i do not want them involved with my children's education nor their health care. i can think of about 2 things the government does well. the first is national defense and the second is maintaining infrastructure. although, i am starting to waiver on the second. if the federal gov't would only do what the constitution spells out for them, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. but i guess if this were the case most politicians today would have nothing to run on. i would also guess that if not for entitlement programs that most dems of today would have nothing at all to keep the majority of their voting base.
 
#121
#121
onlyut4me said:
[/B]

i agree with a lot of what you say about wasteful spending but this is where we differ. i want nothing from the federal gov't other than what is laid out in the constitution. i do not want them involved with my children's education nor their health care. i can think of about 2 things the government does well. the first is national defense and the second is maintaining infrastructure. although, i am starting to waiver on the second. if the federal gov't would only do what the constitution spells out for them, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. but i guess if this were the case most politicians today would have nothing to run on. i would also guess that if not for entitlement programs that most dems of today would have nothing at all to keep the majority of their voting base.
Click to expand...

Well, what you propose is a major shift in the way our country operates. That kind of change isn't going to happen overnight, and it's clear that not a large portion of the voting population wants what you suggest. That could change, but probably not anytime soon.

To the point in bold, Dems aren't the only ones on the government's teet. Republican lawmakers give their base significant perks too - they may not be as obvious to us as entitlement programs, but they're probably as significant.
 
#122
#122
TennNC said:
Well, what you propose is a major shift in the way our country operates. That kind of change isn't going to happen overnight, and it's clear that not a large portion of the voting population wants what you suggest. That could change, but probably not anytime soon.

To the point in bold, Dems aren't the only ones on the government's teet. Republican lawmakers give their base significant perks too - they may not be as obvious to us as entitlement programs, but they're probably as significant.
Click to expand...

I would agree that repubs do give their base perks. I would only point out that they are usually in the form of investment breaks and so forth that do provide a net benefit for the entire population. That is not to say that they all benefit everyone but it just seems to me they tend to benefit society as a whole better than entitlement programs.
 
#123
#123
KB5252 said:
I would agree that repubs do give their base perks. I would only point out that they are usually in the form of investment breaks and so forth that do provide a net benefit for the entire population. That is not to say that they all benefit everyone but it just seems to me they tend to benefit society as a whole better than entitlement programs.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps not outright entitlements, but social programs that keep kids off the street and give them a future, e.g. - those types of "perks" benefit everyone as well, don't you think?
 
#124
#124
TennNC said:
Well, perhaps not outright entitlements, but social programs that keep kids off the street and give them a future, e.g. - those types of "perks" benefit everyone as well, don't you think?
Click to expand...
which ones are those?

There is no such thing as giving someone a future. You might not have intended that as you said it, but the prevailing liberal sentiment is that giving away money and providing programs does just that. It isn't true. Generally, what it gives is a sense of entitlement and ensures future generations of recipients.
 
#125
#125
TennNC said:
Well, perhaps not outright entitlements, but social programs that keep kids off the street and give them a future, e.g. - those types of "perks" benefit everyone as well, don't you think?
Click to expand...

It also has a negative effect as BPV pointed out. The moment you start to give anyone something, money a service what have you, they start to rely on it and soon it becomes their right to have it, not a privilege. It makes people dependent on government for too many aspects of their lives. We are simply too liberal with the help we give. I'm all for help but there needs to be conditions and time tables that go along with it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top